Posts

By Chris Radlicz

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH is Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, which she has chaired from 1988-2003. Additionally, she is Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. Dr. Nestle earned her PhD in molecular biology and MPH from University of California, Berkeley. Her research examines scientific and socioeconomic influences on food choice, obesity, and food safety, with an emphasis on the role of food marketing. She is the author of several prize-winning books, and in her latest, Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), Dr. Nestle provides insight on the soda industries tactics to gain consumers and addresses what is now working in the fight against ‘Big Soda’. I recently had the opportunity to ask Dr. Nestle some questions relevant to her newest book.

1. How has your background in molecular biology lead you to your career interest in public health, and particularly food politics?

The direct story is that I was teaching undergraduate molecular and cell biology in the Biology Department at Brandeis University and was assigned a nutrition course to teach. Undergraduate biology majors wanted a course in human biology and it was my turn to take one on. From the first day I started preparing that course, it was like falling in love. I’ve never looked back. Politics was in the course from day one. It’s not possible to understand how people eat without understanding the social, economic, and political environment of food marketing and food choice.

2. What lead you to write your newest book, “Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning)”?

I’ve been writing about soda marketing since the late 1990s when I learned about “pouring rights” contracts–soda company arrangements with educational institutions for exclusive sale of their brand. These started with colleges but had just gotten to elementary schools when I learned about them.  Since then, I’ve followed Coke and Pepsi marketing with great interest.  I teach food politics and food advocacy at NYU and was well aware of all the advocacy groups working to reduce soda intake as a public health measure.  When my agent suggested that I ought to write a book about sodas, it seemed like a terrific idea to encourage readers to engage in advocacy for healthier food systems.  Sodas are a good example of how to do this.

3. The title is provocative. Why do you say that those taking on ‘Big Soda’ are in fact ‘winning’?

That’s the best part.  Soda sales are way down in the United States. The soda industry thinks public health advocacy is responsible, and who am I to argue?

4. What has influenced the slow but successful decline in soda consumption seen today?

Excellent public health advocacy. Think of New York City’s poster campaigns over the last four or five years. These illustrated the amount of sugar in sodas and how far you would have to walk to work off the calories in one vending machine soda

5. The Coca-Cola funded non-profit, “Global Energy Balance Network”, recently shut its doors. Do you think this is evidence of gaining momentum?

Reporters from the New York Times and the Associated Press were shocked to discover that Coca-Cola was funding university research to demonstrate that physical activity is more effective than eating healthfully in preventing weight gain.  This idea is patently false. Investigations revealed that the researchers worked closely with Coca-Cola executives to craft the research, conduct it, interpret it, publish it, and present it at meetings. This too seemed shocking. Now Coca-Cola is scrutinizing who it supports and many organizations know they need to be more careful to avoid such conflicts of interest.

6. In what ways do you see parallels in tactics used by ‘Big Soda’ and those previously used by cigarette companies in defending their respective products?

Soda is not tobacco but the tactics sure look similar. The soda industry follows the tobacco industry’s playbook to the letter. It too attacks inconvenient science, buys loyalty, funds front groups, lobbies behind the scenes to get what it wants, and spends fortunes to oppose public health measure that might reduce soda intake.

7. Where can people follow your current work and get involved in this fight against ‘Big Soda’?

I write an (almost) daily blog at www.foodpolitics.com where I cover such issues. Soda Politics has an Appendix that lists the principal advocacy groups working on soda issues and provides links to their websites.  It’s easy to get involved in food advocacy and well worth the time.

By: R. Alex Coots

The field of nutrition is diverse. Some nutrition researchers pursue their work to better understand human metabolism, while others seek to help people build healthy eating habits. Despite the different approaches in their research programs, nutrition researchersall aim to improve public health. But simply producing the information isn’t enough. The entirety of scientific knowledge must be evaluated and used to create effective policies to fully realize the benefits of nutrition research.

Angela Tagtow, Executive Director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion at the USDA, continues an illustrious career in health promotion at the USDA. She’s worked in nutrition, public health and food systems at levels ranging from local initiatives to international endeavors. She and I had a conversation about her career, her advice for students interested in policy, and her thoughts on the challenges of policy work.

How did you get your start in nutrition and policy?

Growing up, food and meals were very important in my family. We maintained a large garden which provided diverse foods for our day-to-day meals. In college I had an intense interest in health promotion, but clinical dietetics was focused on treatment rather than prevention of illness. Health promotion at the time was nascent but I saw the potential and oriented my life towards it.

After graduation from college I started work at the American Heart Association as a program director. This position helped build out my network and gave me my start in the health promotion world, however I quickly realized I’d need graduate-level training to take my career further. After graduate school I started work as a consultant in the WIC program at the Iowa Department of Public Health. Here I worked more broadly in the public health domain with a variety of groups such as the county boards of health and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services.

After 9 years, I decided to expand my areas of expertise to include food systems as well as public health and nutrition. I founded a consulting company where I provided education, informed policy, and developed communication tools around health, the environment, and food systems. After 9 years of consulting, I moved back to government to work at the CNPP.

What are the key lessons or skills that you took away from these endeavors?

Consulting work affords you a good deal of flexibility in the types of work that you take on. I was able to broaden my skillsets, increase my knowledge base, and diversify my network in ways that I wouldn’t have been afforded in government. Consulting does have a bit more uncertainty with respect to job security. A career in government is a much different experience. The scope of the work is more defined and the position is more secure compared to consulting, but it may be difficult to advance upward.

The key skillsets that today’s students should focus on are critical thinking, communication, and engagement. As dietitians and nutritionists, we need to feel comfortable being assertive and asking the difficult questions. Of these three skills, engagement and networking are the hardest to teach. Students should continually practice this skill throughout their careers. Networking is something that takes time and is an ongoing learning experience.

When creating nutrition policy, are particular data or data types more useful than others?

All of the different data types must be considered, especially systematic reviews and randomly controlled trials. We need to be looking at the preponderance of data to reach a conclusion, not create policy based on one particular study or study type, as each type of study has strengths and weaknesses. After evaluation of the data, we have to be able to translate the body of research into appropriate policy or interventions. Policy is like a puzzle and data are the pieces.

Do you feel that there’s siloing of academic fields, and that crosstalk can improve health outcomes?

There’s still some siloing of research topics, but there has been improvement. Some land grant institutions with great agricultural research programs focus on food production or food processing issues, but this work is not necessarily connected to the greater picture of human health. Some schools have recognized this issue and have started interdisciplinary programs aimed towards interconnectivity – programs in food systems is a good example. People have recognized the value of an integrated approach, but it’s a process that takes time to develop.

Read Part 2 of this interview.

By Allison Dostal, PhD, RD

The relationship between nutrition and health is fully entrenched in the mainstream media – everyone from career scientists to our next door neighbor seems to be an expert on the topic. Trained health professionals and researchers do our best to deliver credible information, but it’s all too easy for clear messages to get lost in the constant stream of 30-second sound bites.

Dr. Andrew Brown, a Scientist with the University of Alabama-Birmingham’s Nutrition Obesity Research Center (NORC) & Office of Energetics, is focusing his current work on illuminating common misconceptions in the field of nutrition and increasing awareness of media perspectives and biases. I recently had the opportunity to ask him a few questions related to research integrity, science communication, and being a part of the next generation of nutrition researchers and educators working to effectively deliver nutrition information in the Digital Age.

Tell us about your work with NORC and the Office of Energetics.

The majority of my work is in the field of meta-research, which can involve investigating what was studied, why it was studied, and how it was studied. In addition to the more common forms of meta-research, like systematic reviews and meta-analyses, I look at the way that research is conducted, the quality of reporting, analytical choices during statistical analysis, and from where nutritional zeitgeist comes despite little strong empirical evidence.

How did you become interested in calling attention to myths, presumptions, and reporting accuracy of nutrition research?

As a student studying lipid chemistry, I noted that most lipid biochemists (as well as many others) recognized that dietary cholesterol had little impact on blood cholesterol, and yet cholesterol-containing foods were demonized. During my doctoral degree, I attended the Office of Dietary Supplements’ Research Practicum, where I anticipated learning what was and was not known about the health impacts of dietary supplements. Instead, and to my benefit, much of the talk was about limitations of current research, regulatory limitations, and differences in philosophies about how diet – and particularly supplements – could be studied. Claims about dietary cholesterol and supplements are just some of the dietary beliefs that are either completely refuted by our best science or at best weakly supported; yet, many people within and beyond the nutrition science community believe them. Thus my interest is at least two fold. The first is trying to determine which beliefs I hold that are not supported by the evidence, such as the relationship between eating/skipping breakfast and obesity. The other is to help communicate the state of science to hopefully decrease confusion.

With the attention that your research group is calling to this movement, how do you see publication and the media’s attention to nutrition changing in the next 5-10 years?

I am optimistic that nutrition science will continue to improve, including more discussions of the nuances of nutrition science rather than speaking in absolutes. If we ‘know’ that sugar is bad, or polyunsaturated fats are good, or that breakfast prevents obesity, then there is nothing left to study. Because of human heterogeneity within ever-changing local and global environments, it is unlikely that there is one diet or one set of recommendations that is appropriate for everyone and every situation, even for essential nutrients. Population-level recommendations are great place-holders until we develop more refined recommendations for individuals, subgroups, food-types, food-compositions, and other aspects of diet.

In a recent ASN blogger interview with Paul Coates, the Director of the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, he stated with regard to the aging of the nutrition researcher population, “A fairly urgent challenge is identifying people who can come up behind us and continue to identify opportunities for research—particularly those that have public health implications— and be committed to help tackle them.” What are your thoughts on strategies for engaging young nutrition researchers in scientific discourse? How can young researchers take part in a dialogue with fellow scientists, the media, and the public to improve communication and perception of nutrition research?

I think we need to keep our eyes open for promising individuals that we can trust to think scientifically and ethically, and help them grow in a tailored way. The increased use of Individual Development Plans seems to be a great step in this direction, as is putting a maximum number of years on post-doctoral training, with the idea that a post-doctoral position is for additional training, not for an indefinite job. I have been extremely fortunate to have had mentors that gave me opportunities to speak, develop ideas, and truly contribute to teams and discussions throughout my formal education, as early as my freshman year. I was encouraged to write grants, publish, and complete other essential activities in the business of science, but my mentors focused very much on teaching me how to ask scientific questions; read the existing literature; develop critical scientific thinking skills; communicate with precision; and conduct good science.

On the side of mentees and students, I think it is important to be inquisitive while being willing to admit if you don’t know something. Stating confidently something that is false is a great way to lose trust and be excluded from the discussion. Instead, ask for clarification; add information to the conversation that might be useful; and, most importantly, don’t force yourself into discussions just to be noticed.

I also think it is important to move away from research focusing so heavily on public health (with the full disclosure that I work in a School of Public Health). Improvements in the public’s health is a noble and lofty goal, but to come into a study with the assumption that the outcome will result in an improvement in public health (particularly the entire population’s health) encourages overstating of results, misinterpretation of data, and doubling-down on dietary preconceptions. In science, the focus needs to be on determining some form of objective truth or lawful relationship. If we can identify these truths and relationships, then ways to improve public health will become self-evident, with the understanding that policy decisions are based on value structures beyond scientific evidence.

What advice do you have for graduate students and early career investigators?

Make sure you are doing something you love, that you do it to the best of your ability, and that you do it with the highest integrity. Be sure anything you put your name to is something that you are willing to take credit for, but also understand that this means you will be responsible for shortcomings of the work if problems are discovered later. And always be willing to entertain and evaluate an idea, especially one you disagree with or find unpalatable; these could be the very ideas that lead you to new lines of work, may help you better communicate your ideas to those who disagree with you, or might even overturn your entire view on a subject. As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Interview with NIH Office of Dietary Supplements Director Dr. Paul Coates

By: R. Alex Coots

Academia is changing.

Today’s universities increasingly rely on adjunct faculty to teach courses and reserve the coveted full-time academic position for the science superstars. This phenomenon, coupled with decreasing paylines from funding agencies, makes a science career especially challenging to pursue. And that’s not even considering the project difficulties!

The problem has become so pressing that even the NIH has realized it. New initiatives, such as the BEST Innovation Award, aim to ensure that graduate students and post-docs have increased opportunities to expand their skill sets for a future outside of academia.

Policy is one of the many areas that nutrition experts can serve. The current Director of the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), Dr. Paul Coates, successfully made the transition from bench research as a geneticist to a career in science policy. He spoke with me about his career and transition to ODS.

What motivated your interest into policy?
I was curious. For all these years, I had been funded to do research by the NIH and other organizations, but what I concentrated most on was my own research. I was pretty naïve when I came to the NIH, not knowing what life was like for people who worked on the government side. There were plenty of them like me, PhD’s in one setting or another, who had come to the NIH to work as extramural program directors.

What are the important skills or knowledge that someone should have when moving into policy?
One of the things I understood was the importance of making connections. My first job at the NIH was focusing on diabetes research efforts. I learned how to work with other people within an institute, and then gradually in other institutes and beyond to achieve common goals. I think the art of science policy is knowing who else works in this field that you can benefit from, and flip it around and ask “How can I help other people benefit from working together with them?” Recognize the talent that’s out there in other organizations.

What advice would you give to students?
You need to pay your dues as a scientist first. You need to understand the scientific method. You don’t have to spend an eternity in science, but you must have spent some time doing it. Author publications and write grants. My observation is that the people best prepared for this kind of experience “get it” about what a scientist does. They must be prepared to critically analyze data and know what to look for in the literature to inform policy.

What types of projects do the AAAS and Milner fellows work on?
The AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship is beautifully designed to encourage people at different levels of experience in science to work closely with federal agencies to learn about the science-to-policy transition. In ODS, we’re recent partners in that program. Fellows are engaged in projects that my office works on. We have a very active role in translating science into policy, but also in identifying research needs.

The Milner fellowship has a different side to it. Jointly funded by ODS and the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, the Milner fellowship brings in one or two people per year for a two-year stint that will allow them to conduct research in one of the labs at Beltsville. At the same time, they participate at ODS in work on science policy.

How do you see ODS changing in the future?
ODS is getting a little older. A fairly urgent challenge is identifying people who can come up behind us and continue to identify opportunities for research—particularly those that have public health implications— and be committed to help tackle them.

A Conversation with ASN Executive Officer John E. Courtney, PhD
By Teresa L. Johnson, MSPH, RD

The smile on Dr. John Courtney’s face says it all: ASN’s Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at EB 2015 is the place to be. Courtney, who is in his ninth year as ASN’s Executive Officer, sat down with me on a sunny afternoon in Boston and chatted about the meeting and ASN’s current and future status.

TJ: What’s your favorite thing about ASN’s Annual Meeting?
JC: It’s so great for bringing together the wide, diverse audience of ASN in one central convening area. We have members in basic, clinical, and translational nutrition, and they’re housed in academia, medicine, practice, and industry. So it’s exciting to give people an opportunity to develop and build partnerships and work together, not only to advance the science but their personal careers too.

TJ: Tell me about the changes ASN members can expect to see in 2018.
JC: ASN will convene a nutrition-focused Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting for three years beginning in 2018. EB has been a great forum for people to work within, but we think that having a nutrition-focused meeting brings together members of the nutrition science community where they can all meet and convene. It will be a smaller meeting so it will be more open to networking, less confusing, and have less competition for scheduling to allow productive connections. I envision us having a lot more flexibility in how we structure our meeting. We’ll probably do it outside the academic year, and we’ll do it in a cool place!

TJ: What are you hearing from the members regarding this change?
JC: There’s been great support from our members, and a lot of excitement. Of course, our current president, Dr. Simin Nikbin Meydani (pictured below with Dr. Courtney) of Jean Mayer USDA HNRCA at Tufts University, is a fantastic leader with great skills in consensus-building. If you make changes, you really have to go the extra mile in seeking input and cultivating agreement, and she’s done that.

TJ: How will ASN maintain the same level of quality in its meeting?
JC: A lot of questions have been raised about how we can do it the best way. Some people are concerned because they like the EB model—they like the “cross-fertilization” of scientific disciplines—so one of the things we’re hearing loud and clear is that we need to keep that cross-fertilization. So we’ll offer programming that meets all the segments of ASN’s needs.

TJ: What will be unique about ASN’s meeting?
JC: I see us having a lot of different types of activities. We can take a look at how to offer sessions that reach out to the public. Right now we reach the researchers and the practitioners, but we want to take that next leap and start to engage the public.

We’re also planning sessions that are unrelated to nutrition. Maybe we’ll hear about the newest, hottest thing in the future of information technology or the potential role that robotics can play in personalized health!

Perhaps we’ll have an inspirational session that brings in that spectacular leader or renowned speaker who says, “This is what the world is going to look like in 2050,” and asks, “How can people working in nutrition prepare for the challenges and the opportunities that will be taking place then?”

TJ: How is ASN poised to address the next five years?
JC: We have a strategic map that focuses on positioning ASN as the global authoritative leader in nutrition science. We have an actionable dashboard that identifies what our key problematic areas are and we’ve developed strategies that fit and help us meet those challenges.

For example, one of the exciting strategies that our incoming president Dr. Patrick Stover, Cornell University, wants to focus on is positioning ASN for 2028—the 100th anniversary for the Society. So, rather than looking at what we want to be in five years, we’re asking what we want to do and be in 2028; then we’re breaking it into chunks that will get us there. We’re looking at an endpoint to best add the most value.

TJ: What kinds of initiatives do you anticipate ASN will launch here in the US and abroad?
JC: I expect we’ll have a lot more topical meetings throughout the world. We have meetings now in the Middle East, Central and South America, and Asia, but I see us really taking off so that ASN will have a presence in every major continent in the next five years. Although we have that presence now with members, we don’t offer a lot of programming outside of the States so that’s what we want to do—develop programs that meet those members’ needs and grow even more.

TJ: Will ASN still be called “American Society for Nutrition”?
JC: That’s a great question! We’ve dialogued about that and had a lot of good feedback about it. I don’t envision us changing ASN—I really don’t—but we’re a volunteer organization, and if our volunteers should wish to change it, perhaps we’ll simply refer to ourselves as “ASN.” When we say our name, we each have some vision of what that means, but what we really are is a global organization. We have over 5,200 members in 72 different countries, and approximately 28% of the meeting attendees are from outside the United States. Clearly we’re drawing a global audience.

TJ: What keeps ASN relevant?
JC: ASN really is the global leader in nutrition science. Our members, our authors, and our speakers are the preeminent leaders in nutrition. They’re the ones researching today’s problems, disseminating that research through our publications and our meeting-related activities, and then taking it and translating that to dietitians, medical practitioners, and public health advocates.

ASN is really on the move. We’ve more than doubled our membership, outreach, staffing and budget in the last 10 years. In the next 10 years I think we’ll see equivalent growth in terms of our revenue and our member service activities, so we’ll have more interaction on a grander scale.

For a first-person take on Dr. Courtney’s management style, watch his video interview with CEO Update here.

By Kevin Klatt @nutrevolve

The concept of food addiction is of particular relevance to field of nutritional sciences. The conversation in popular media describes food addiction as though there is scientific consensus surrounding the topic. However, its lack of inclusion in the DSM-V leaves many evidence-based practitioners skeptical about using this kind of terminology. To understand this disconnect, I reached out to Jennifer Nasser, PhD, RD, to hear a researcher and clinician’s perspective on this controversial topic.

Dr. Nasser is an associate professor in the Nutrition Sciences Department at Drexel University’s College of Nursing and Health Professions. Her research focuses on the neurobiological aspects of food intake and preference. Her current research uses the non-invasive functional near-infrared spectroscope (fNIR) to measure brain activity under varying nutrient and metabolic conditions.

Q: Documentaries like FedUp, books such as Wheat Belly and seemingly countless articles circulating the internet throw around the term ‘food addiction’ as if it’s fact. What are your thoughts on the term ‘food addiction’?

A: The problem with the term “food addiction” is two-fold. One problem is that it is defined differently by different groups of people interested in the topic, i.e. the lay consumer uses addiction to describe “loss of control” over anything, but especially their favorite foods; the clinician uses the term to couple “loss of control” and feelings about “loss of control” with social and health consequences; and the behavior pharmacologists don’t use the term because of its clinical associations, rather they focus on the behavior and neurobiology associated with the five domains that characterize “drug addiction”:
Dependence = how difficult to quit
Withdrawal = presence and severity of symptoms in absence of substance
Reinforcement = ability to promote use over other substances i.e. “loss of control” over use
Tolerance = how much is needed to satisfy increasing cravings and level of stable need
Intoxication = mind altering stupefaction, excitement or euphoria that renders a person unable to act competently.
These domains are all based upon the principle that there is no “natural” satiety system for drug use and no beneficial need for “addictive” drugs. This brings us to the second and more important problem with the term “food addiction”, namely that there is a built in system meant to control food intake in the body and there is an obligatory need to consume food. Consequently, any determination of “food addiction” must be made while controlling for the contribution of the natural control system and need for food and nutrients.

Q: What is the neurobiological basis of this?

A: Many neurobiological systems are involved in controlling food intake. There are different orexigenic and anorexigenic peptides (with brain and gut sources) involved as well as neurotransmitters in the brain that contribute to the desire for food. Examples: orexigenic peptide- ghrelin, some endogenous opioids and endocannabinoids; anorexigenic peptides- leptin, glp-1, cck, amylin; neurotransmitters- dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine, acetylcholine, endogenous opioids and endocannabinoids, gaba, glutamate.

Q: Is there a gold standard technique in this research? What lines of evidence will be required to prove/disprove that individuals may struggle with food addiction-related behavior?

A: The DSM-V committee that focused on addiction declined to add “food addiction” as a recognized mental illness stated that there is not definitive evidence for its addiction. One important piece of missing information is which nutrient(s) form the basis for the addiction. Is there just one “addictive” component to food? Is the addiction to the social associations surrounding food?

With respect to a gold standard technique: reinforcement by operant responding is used to determine the relative reinforcing value of drugs and to get them classified for addiction potential. Some people have published food reinforcement studies, myself included. However, if you compare across these studies you find that some are done when people are fasting and a few are done in the satiated, fed state. The results vary depending upon the feed status of the participants and there’s not agreement yet in the field as to the proper conditions for defining addiction potential of various foods.

Q: I’ve seen many argue that sugar lights up the same areas of the brain as addictive drugs, and, from this, conclude that it too is addictive. Coming from an evolutionary biology background, it makes sense to me that pleasurable nutrients would show this response in the brain. I’m not sure how the primate tree of life would’ve fared if they stumbled onto fruit and thought ‘meh’. How do you distinguish between a normal physiological pleasure response to nutrients and addictive behavior?

A: Good point. As I said above, one way is to compare responses in the fed and fasted state. (See Nasser et al. Obesity 2008 16:1816-1820).

Q: I first heard about loss of control (LOC) eating while reading some nutrigenetic research looking at specific FTO genotypes (rs9939609) and their relationship with this sort of eating behavior. Do you think that certain individuals are more prone to LOC eating?

A: Possibly, in addition to FTO, there’s some evidence that there are differences in the dopamine transporter gene and D2 receptor genes that confer more susceptibility towards LOC.

Q: The whole concept of LOC eating seems to narrow in on processed foods. Do you think this behavior is independent of processed food consumption? The focus on just sugar seems to be a bit unscientific. Dosage and context of the whole diet are always factors in nutrition – is there research to show they matter with LOC eating? I know there has been other research on the same FTO SNP associated with LOC episodes that used higher protein intake to alter appetite.

A: The focus on sugar is backed by scientific evidence with respect to sugar being the important reinforcing component even in sugar/fat mixtures (see Naleid et al 2008). With respect to neurotransmitter release, both sugar and fat have shown dose response in relation to dopamine release. (see papers by Hajnal and Bello). Both of these studies have used rats.

Part of the problem of defining the causative substance still comes down to having an agreement as to whether we’re talking about domains/characteristics of “addictive” like behavior or we’re saying that “activation” of similar brain regions by food and drugs of abuse constitute “food addiction.”

With respect to protein and appetite, I think that again we need to have agreement that experiments to investigate “food addiction” need to use fed, objective calorically satiated participants. Protein is a good satiating and satiety promoting macronutrient. If we agree on a standard physical condition for our participants, we could then look at the relative reinforcing power of various food components with respect to the five domains of “addiction” and get some standardized answers. From there we can then make a collective decision as to whether the reinforcing and/or other domain characteristics seen under standardized conditions rise to a level of concern that needs to be labeled as food addiction.

Q: The IOM recently convened a panel on food addiction. What were the takeaways from this?
A: The IOM is going to release proceedings from their meeting soon, so I think it’s best to wait for the official version of the consensus of the meeting.

Q: If people are interested in this topic, what journals or labs would you specifically recommend following?
A: Journals: Appetite, Physiology and Behavior, AJCN, Biological Psychiatry, Neuroimage, Science to name a few.

There are a lot of people actively working in this field and I don’t want to not mention anyone, so I would suggest doing a PubMed search, and also a RePORTER search on the NIH website to find those funded to work in food addiction, LOC eating and binge eating, as well as addiction in general.

Q: What are your caveats to other scientists and clinicians with interpreting this research?

A: I agree with the DSM-V committee that we need to define the component(s) of food that promote addictive behavior. Additionally I think it’s very important to define “addiction”-related factors as those that occur in the fed, satiated state. Until we satisfy our natural nutrient needs, the concept of addiction is irrelevant. It’s the food intake and accompanying calories that are consumed beyond metabolic need that create the negative health consequences.